Editing Deliberative democracy (section)

==Characteristics==

===Fishkin's model of deliberation===
[[James Fishkin]], who has designed practical implementations of deliberative democracy through [[deliberative polling]] for over 15 years in various countries,{{sfn|Ross|2011|loc=Chapter 3}} describes five characteristics essential for legitimate deliberation:
*''Information'': The extent to which participants are given access to reasonably accurate information that they believe to be relevant to the issue
* ''Substantive balance'': The extent to which arguments offered by one side or from one perspective are answered by considerations offered by those who hold other perspectives
* ''Diversity'': The extent to which the major positions in the public are represented by participants in the discussion
* ''Conscientiousness'': The extent to which participants sincerely weigh the merits of the arguments
* ''Equal consideration'': The extent to which arguments offered by all participants are considered on the merits regardless of which participants offer them<ref>{{Cite book|title = When the People speak|last = Fishkin|first = James S.|publisher = Oxford University Press|year = 2009|isbn = 978-0-19-957210-6|location = Oxford|pages = 160f|url = https://archive.org/details/whenpeoplespeakd00fish_1|url-access = registration}}</ref>
Studies by [[James Fishkin]] and others have concluded that deliberative democracy tends to produce outcomes which are superior to those in other forms of democracy.{{sfn|Elster|1998|loc=Chapter 5}}<ref>Susan C. Strokes in her critical essay ''Pathologies of Deliberation'' (Chapter 5 of Elster 1998) concedes there that a majority of academics interested agree with this view.</ref> Desirable outcomes in their research include less partisanship and more sympathy with opposing views; more respect for evidence-based reasoning rather than opinion; a greater commitment to the decisions taken by those involved; and a greater chance for widely shared consensus to emerge, thus promoting social cohesion between people from different backgrounds.{{sfn|Fishkin|2011|loc=Chapters 2 & 3}}{{sfn|Ross|2011|loc=Chapter 3}} Fishkin cites extensive empirical support for the increase in public spiritedness that is often caused by participation in deliberation, and says theoretical support can be traced back to foundational democratic thinkers such as [[John Stuart Mill]] and [[Alexis de Tocqueville]].{{sfn|Fishkin|2011|p=103}}<ref>See also Chapter 5 of Fishkin (2011), which gives detailed citations to the empirical work. The specific Mill work cited is ''Considerations on Representative Government'' (1861), and the specific Tocqueville work cited is ''Democracy in America'' (1835).</ref> 

===Cohen's outline===
[[Joshua Cohen (philosopher)|Joshua Cohen]], a student of [[John Rawls]], argued that the five main features of deliberative democracy include:<ref name=":3">{{Cite book |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/goodpolitynormat0000unse/page/17/mode/1up?view=theater |title=The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State |date=1989 |publisher=B. Blackwell |others=Alan P. Hamlin, Philip Pettit |isbn=0-631-15804-9 |location=Oxford, UK |pages=17–34 |chapter=Ch 2: Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy |oclc=18321533}}</ref>

# An ongoing independent association with expected continuation.
# The citizens in the democracy structure their institutions such that deliberation is the deciding factor in the creation of the institutions and the institutions allow deliberation to continue.
# A commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values and aims within the polity.
# The citizens consider deliberative procedure as the source of legitimacy, and prefer the causal history of legitimation for each law to be transparent and easily traceable to the deliberative process.
# Each member recognizes and respects other members' deliberative capacity.
Cohen presents deliberative democracy as more than a theory of legitimacy, and forms a body of substantive rights around it based on achieving "ideal deliberation":<ref name=":3" />
# It is free in two ways:
## The participants consider themselves bound solely by the results and preconditions of the deliberation. They are free from any authority of prior norms or requirements.
## The participants suppose that they can act on the decision made; the deliberative process is a sufficient reason to comply with the decision reached.
# Parties to deliberation are required to state reasons for their proposals, and proposals are accepted or rejected based on the reasons given, as the content of the very deliberation taking place.
# Participants are equal in two ways:
## Formal: anyone can put forth proposals, criticize, and support measures. There is no substantive hierarchy.
## Substantive: The participants are not limited or bound by certain distributions of power, resources, or pre-existing norms. "The participants…do not regard themselves as bound by the existing system of rights, except insofar as that system establishes the framework of free deliberation among equals."
# Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]]: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making.  When consensus or something near enough is not possible, [[majority rule|majoritarian decision making]] is used.

In ''Democracy and Liberty'', an essay published in 1998, Cohen updated his idea of pluralism to "reasonable pluralism" – the acceptance of different, incompatible worldviews and the importance of good faith deliberative efforts to ensure that as far as possible the holders of these views can live together on terms acceptable to all.{{sfn|Elster|1998|loc=Chapter 8 (essay by Cohen)}}

===Gutmann and Thompson's model===
[[Amy Gutmann]] and [[Dennis F. Thompson]]'s definition captures the elements that are found in most conceptions of deliberative democracy. They define it as "a form of government in which free and equal citizens and their representatives justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of reaching decisions that are binding on all at present but open to challenge in the future".<ref>Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004). ''Why Deliberative Democracy?'' pp. 3-7.</ref>

They state that deliberative democracy has four requirements, which refer to the kind of reasons that citizens and their representatives are expected to give to one another:
# Reciprocal. The reasons should be acceptable to free and equal persons seeking fair terms of cooperation. 
# Accessible. The reasons must be given in public and the content must be understandable to the relevant audience.
# Binding. The reason-giving process leads to a decision or law that is enforced for some period of time.  The participants do not deliberate just for the sake of deliberation or for individual enlightenment. 
# Dynamic or Provisional. The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws.

=== Standards of good deliberation - from first to second generation (Bächtiger et al., 2018) ===
For Bächtiger, [[John Dryzek|Dryzek]], [[Jane Mansbridge|Mansbridge]] and Warren, the ideal standards of "good deliberation" which deliberative democracy should strive towards have changed:<ref name=":2" />
{| class="wikitable"
|+Standards for "good deliberation"<ref name=":2" />
!First generation
!Second generation
|-
|Respect
|Unchallenged, unrevised
|-
|Absence of power
|Unchallenged, unrevised
|-
|Equality
|Inclusion, mutual respect, equal communicative freedom, equal opportunity for influence 
|-
|Reasons
|Relevant considerations
|-
|Aim at consensus
|Aim at both consensus and clarifying conflict
|-
|Common good orientation
|Orientation to both common good and self-interest constrained by fairness
|-
|Publicity
|Publicity in many conditions, but not all (e.g. in negotiations when representatives can be trusted)
|-
|Accountability
|Accountability to constituents when elected, to other participants and citizens when not elected
|-
|Sincerity
|Sincerity in matters of importance; allowable insincerity in greetings, compliments, and other communications intended to increase sociality 
|}